Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ridge Racer (video game)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2016 [1].

Ridge Racer (video game) edit

Nominator(s): Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past months, I have worked hard on this article, and believe (hope?) it might now meet the FA criteria. I'm not sure if any more info can be added, and have tried my best to make the prose as good as possible, and the citations consistent. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from czar edit

  • I think I've said this in another review but superscript footnotes like "[2](pp84–90)[3](pp50–51)[4]" are an impediment to reading. The page ranges should be shifted to be somewhere within the footnote/bibliography section. And 84–90 is not a great page range for verifying a single fact—you want to be as specific as possible. There's also an excess of fair use images—see the WP:NFCC and the individual images' fair use rationales for congruence. There should be a very specific reason for why the prose necessitates each fair use screenshot, and I don't see the case for needing to visualize the soundtrack album. czar 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use the parameter of |page= for the page numbers instead. Having really long inline citations is distracting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Czar: @Anarchyte: Am I to understand that any article using the {{rp}} template cannot achieve featured status? That kind of defeats the whole point. If I cite the same source multiple times, but merely different pages, surely it's much better to have the page number in the citation rather than have 20 different citations to the same source? Is there any other way of having different page numbers without having lots of otherwise duplicate citations? If long citations are distracting, then we should never use Harvard or any other citation style, as they're much longer than this. Adam9007 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that? I don't think anyone would say anything if the whole footnote was "[2]:80" but you're using multiple page ranges in a single superscript—the point of footnotes is to store the information within reach but not distractingly in the reader's face. I wouldn't say it's much of a help to have two page ranges as verification for a single sentence, no. This is straightforward so I fail to see the hesitancy. If you disagree, let's see what other reviewers say. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Actually, it's not a single sentence it's verifying; it's all that's written up to that point:

Pages 84-90 of the first book give the names and specs of the cars. Pages 50-51 of the second book support the fact extra ones are unlocked on winning Galaxian. Page 4 of the first book also supports that, so I got rid of the second citation, and the citation after the second sentence and changed it to "[1]:4,84–90[2]". Is this good enough? Should I try to do this throughout the article? Unfortunately, I can't help the way the books are organised. Should I perhaps put such citations at the end of the paragraph? I've also got rid of the ps as suggested. Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote can/should be helpful more than it is short. For instance, you can explain in the footnote itself: "For car specifications, see pp. X–Y. For etc." The superscript footnote isn't meant to support more than a few quick numbers, and even then that gets unwieldy ("[2]:18,24,30,40[6]:5"). There's no reason to not bake whatever the numbers are meant to signify into the footnote itself. I would keep citations specific to each sentence, where possible. Remember that the idea is verifiability. If you move a horde of citations to the end of the paragraph, it'll be even harder to trace any of its information. czar 03:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: So it's possible to put all the pages used in the same footnote? There's no need for umpteen footnotes for the same book just because different pages are used? Adam9007 (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few ways of doing it. One would be to have a separate "Sources" section with generic citations and to create {{sfn}} short footnotes, each with page ranges off of the generic footnote. Knight Lore is an example of this. Another option would be to use the full citation for the first mention of source and then to use short footnotes after, if you don't want a separate Sources section. Another option is to use a custom {{refn}} footnote and to spell out what exactly the pages are used for what—this is the academic way. So perhaps you'd have a Notes section that entries like "Namco 199X. For car specifications, see pp. X–Y. For A, see B." and so on, and then you could have a separate section where Namco 199X is expanded. It's your call, but not having it in the text itself would be an improvement to readers. czar 00:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I'll do whatever it takes to get this up to FA. But to be on the safe side, I think I'd better wait and see what other reviewers think before radically changing anything. But there's another problem; the track list and album cover art. Should I get rid of them? Dissident93 simply said "no tracklistings". He didn't say why. I have seen FAs with both tracklistings and album cover art.; what makes this one different? Adam9007 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WPVG consensus for track listings is to only include track lists when the soundtrack has some notability of its own. Personally, if the depth of coverage of the soundtrack is currently expressed in the article, the track listing doesn't appear to augment anything in the text (none of the track are mentioned by name by reviewers, etc.) In that case, you certainly wouldn't need the infobox as well—anything important from it can go in prose. While we're here, I'd also change the format of the reviews. There's way too much data in each box. I'm not sure that "PS1" needs to be repeated so often. And then there's the issue of jamming the page numbers next to the superscript in that small box... But it's fine to handle that with other reviewers. czar 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to link the policy, but forgot. Per WP:GAMECRUFT #15, we shouldn't list tracklistings. Even the ones on the FA Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross articles got removed, and if they aren't considered notable, Ridge Racer shouldn't either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'm really sorry, but is there any way this can be put on hold or something? I had a bit of a drama at ANI, and I think it's best if I just take a break from not just that area, but the whole thing for a while. Adam9007 (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, @Adam9007. Hopefully you'll be back soon. There's plenty of work besides the A7 queues. As for the FAC, you can always withdraw it for now and open up "archive2" in a few weeks when you're ready. czar 06:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Adam, no shame in needing a break so if you want to do that I'd prefer this was withdrawn and you can begin a re-nomination when you're ready. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not having heard back from the nominator after three days, I think it's time we archived this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ridge_Racer_(video_game)/archive1&oldid=1143717945"